DeFi protocol TVL by chain

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the data source (DefiLlama) and per-call pricing, which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, focused statements with no wasted words. The most critical information (what it does, result breakdown, data source, cost) is front-loaded and easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with good annotations, the description covers the output (TVL by chain + market cap), data source, and cost. Could mention error handling for invalid slugs, but not required for basic completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'protocol' parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves current TVL for a specific DeFi protocol, broken out by chain, plus market cap. The verb-resource combination is precise, and the qualifiers distinguish it from siblings like rank_chains_by_defi_tvl or get_crypto_price.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you need a specific protocol's TVL breakdown, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor are there exclusions. Without explicit guidance, the agent must infer from the sibling tool list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.